This article seeks to consider the position of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Siliadin v. France, addressing the Court's interpretation of slavery under Article 1 of the Slavery Convention 1926 in the light of international law on slavery, and the criticism that the Court should have extended its capability under Article 41 of the European Convention to stipulate more extensive remedial measures. The article contrasts the Court's reasoning, to develop a diagnostic survey of definitions of slavery and servitude, and to identify a conflation or substitution of terminology within the anti-slavery field and a possible reduction in protection where forced labour is concerned. The author proceeds to evaluate some of the consequences of continual and inconsistent re-categorisation for national and international laws. © 2010 Taylor & Francis.

Forced labour Positive obligations Remedies definition Slavery human rights International law

[No Keywords available]